Sun Aug 16, 2009 Comments

My grandmother passed away a few months ago. When cleaning out the house with her siblings, my mother found this poem written by my grandfather, who died in 1988.

I have fond memories of listening to my grandfather tell funny stories. I don't remember the details of his stories but I do remember how he took great care to describe the setting, the characters, and all the backstory that happened before he arrived at the scene. The majority of his stories, it seemed, was setup. This made an impression on me and I recognize it now as absolutely essential to storytelling. The audience doesn't live inside your head. It's up to you, the storyteller, to determine what the audience needs to know in order to find the tale amusing. My grandfather seemed to relive the stories as he told them, so the emotion on display in his face communicated as much as his words did.

Many of my grandfather's stories revolved around the incompetence or ill manners of shopkeepers, bureaucrats, and other petty clerks. People in positions of false authority, not really able to help but with immense power to aggravate and annoy. My grandfather had little ability to conceal his irritation with the idiocy of others. I'm sure it often took all his might to remain civil in the moment. But this repression only enhanced his narrative when he finally had an opportunity to relive the encounter in sympathetic company. For he could express himself fully, without regard for the feelings of the stupid clerk. This made for some really funny tales.

I'm sure my grandfather told stories about his sales job and office politics and all the frustrations of the workaday world. And I'm sure I didn't understand them, considering I was only thirteen years old when he died. Or perhaps he told them in the company of adults only. Nonetheless, having heard his tales of the incompetence and uncaring attitudes of petty clerks, and having worked myself in the corporate world for eleven years now, I'm sure I can guess his attitude towards corporate employment.

Reading my grandfather's poem confirmed his attitude was as wry and sarcastic as I suspected it might be. I give you Company Policy, by Roy Koeppel:

As I write this I'm drinking some 1970 Seagram's V.O. whisky found unopened in Grandpa's liquor cabinet. Probably a gift from a client. Or from an asshole boss.

Sun Aug 16, 2009 Comments

Jimmy Stewart grew up in the same county in Pennsylvania as my great grandmother.

I don't remember much about G.G. I do know she was a smart woman who followed current events, held strong political opinions, and wrote poetry. She labeled her efforts "poem-try" because she didn't think it was of the same caliber as poetry proper.

Years after Jimmy Stewart had become a hero in WWII and a movie star in Hollywood, my great grandmother wrote him a letter and enclosed some of her poetry.

Maybe because he noticed the return address was from Butler, PA, or maybe because he was such a nice man, he wrote her back. I can't read the date on the cancellation stamp. The value of the postage stamp is 20¢, so he must have written her sometime between 1981 and 1985.

The letter reads:

Or maybe he wrote her back out of sympathy for a fellow poem-try writer.

Sat Aug 15, 2009 (Music) Comments

Metallica posts a video on their website from each live show. The video usually includes footage of the band meeting fan club members, warming up in the "tuning and attitude" room, and a song from that night's show.

I found this gem recently. It's one of the best live versions of Disposable Heroes I've ever heard. And it's from the tuning room!

This song has a special meaning for me. I associate it with the maturing of my musical tastes. I distinctly remember being in my high school gym at 6:00 in the morning, taking batting practice with the varsity baseball team before class started. I was a sophomore and had recently been called up to pitch for the varsity team. The coach let us play the radio while we practiced. The Deep Purple song Smoke on the Water came on and one of my teammates- a senior- started playing air guitar. He walked past me, jamming along with the simplistic intro chords, and said a bit too conspicuously, "This is the best!"

The day before a friend had lent me Metallica's Master of Puppets CD. I listened to the album that night in rapt attention from start to finish and was just blown away. It was the most amazing music I'd ever heard. So next morning when my teammate expressed his enthusiasm for Smoke on the Water I remember feeling disdainful and thought to myself, "What the hell am I doing with these people?"

Yes, a bit harsh. But it was the thought of a 16 year old kid who could not identify with the simple-minded testosterone of the jocks. Anyhow, there's so much to like about this video. I love how Kirk asks the band to play the song because he needs to practice the solo. Then knocks it out of the park. Just masterful. Also...

• Love Lars' drums at the beginning. Punctuates the angry emotion of the song.
• Love the camaraderie of the band. They look like they're having fun.
• Love the thought that this is a "day at the office" for them. Like all professionals they have to work hard to be good at what they do.
• Kirk is amazing, no doubt. But man, can James play rhythm guitar! The riff he plays at 2:15 just screams "Metal!" The gallop riff he plays at 2:32 just fucking rocks. It puts to shame all of the Emo shit infecting our music today.
• Love the tone of the guitars. Heavy, threatening, ominous.

As a bonus, here's a video of Kirk and Lars jamming on Whitesnake's Here I Go Again. Metallica has the ability to take a song you'd scoff at and make it sound badass. What's the riff that Kirk plays at the end? Sounds like it could be from a Tool song.

Fri Jul 17, 2009 (Politics, Religion) Comments

[I sent this e-mail to my sister in September of 2004. My anger is directed not so much at those who vote for the wrong candidate as those who vote out of fear.]

I'm so angry, and I don't know what to do with my anger. I think I'm going to disappear temporarily into an intellectual hole and do a lot of reading, to remind myself that it's okay to dismiss the wider world and all its boorish demands, and spend some time with stimulating minds. Really, why do I need to concern myself with all these boring, unimaginative, and sheepish people? Because they exert great influence upon the governance of my country? You know, it's not worth the emotional energy it costs and the stress it induces. I now understand the elitism found in the British upper classes. I once despised it. I now understand it and wholeheartedly embrace it. I am an elitist and I make no apology for it because I am better than most people. Why should I mollify my opinions and analysis to protect the insecurities of people who have chosen to ignore the wider world and whose only response when that world threatens theirs is to fall back upon the role assigned them by their high school principal: to bark out patriotic rah, rah, cheerleader slogans at a nationalistic pep rally? Why should I change to accommodate their ignorance? They are the ones who must change or get out of the way.

Of course, that's not going to happen, it's a lost cause. Even if one succeeds in winning the allegiance of these cretins, it's for all the wrong reasons. Frank Rich makes excellent points about Kerry's missteps, how he often plays right into the hands of the present administration. But who's making him sidestep like this? I don't believe it's due to Kerry's failings, at least that's not the primary cause. The primary cause is people's stupidity and intellectual laziness in believing in a leader because of what he won't ask them to do or understand.

I watched the NBC news last night and found some pleasure in seeing a seventy year old lady shout down a bunch of Republican assholes that attempted to disrupt one of John Kerry's neighborhood meetings. She made me feel hopeful after much dismay. And by the way, is that their solution to national problems? To not let the other side speak? Morons. And do you think our government security services would have allowed such treatment of a sitting president? ... Anyhow, the old lady, by herself, took them on. The imagery was great: This seventy year old woman, back to the camera, facing off against a cadre of Young Republican Assholes. The septuagenarian points a finger at them and explains forcefully, "I don't hate you, I hate what you stand for. I hate what you support." Then she turns to the camera, smiles, and walks off. It was satisfying not only for what she said, but what her body language communicated. It was as if her posture declared, "You should know better. LET YOUR ELDERS SPEAK! I'm old and my legs don't work so well. I shouldn't have to come over here to shout you down, and remind you to keep mum and respect your elders. Let Mr. Kerry speak."

The problem is that George W. Bush is simply more appealing to the uninformed masses than John Kerry. Fundamentally, the masses like being obedient. And George W. Bush will gladly serve as an idol for their obeisance. It helps with his Freudian complex- more on that later. He will give them their marching orders. He will instruct them on what to believe and how to behave. And his commands will never offend the masses because a) they know he's one of them and b) he will never challenge them, at least not the civilian population.

Now, this ordering of humanity under the present administration is not in and of itself offensive. I mean, Dostoyevsky was right when he wrote that the vast majority of humanity serves as fodder for some mysterious genetic equation that justifies its often wasteful output by producing- very rarely- people of intelligence and ability who are capable of articulating a new thought within their time. The vast majority of people contribute little to society beyond devising their own amusements and passing along their feckless genes. The only reason this world is tolerable is because occasionally one meets, or reads, or listens to, or watches someone articulate a new and challenging idea. Dostoyevsky may have intended to warn the strong among men of the dangers of realizing this, and illustrated how such knowledge of human character can warp a man into a moral monster (in Crime and Punishment). But that is not to say his observation was incorrect.

No, what is offensive is not the ordering of humanity under the present administration. It is no more offensive than usual. What is really offensive is that today's Caesar is himself a dupe. Oh, the masses are being duped, but after all, that is their role. They play it with relish. The scary part is not the sheepishness of the masses- it would be no different under a liberal President- the scary part is that the leader himself is also being duped. George W. is so intellectually weak that he has completely fallen prey to the spells of his Machiavellian advisors. He is wholly under control of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and company. An article in this month's Atlantic Monthly quotes a senior military planner as stating, "There are only six or eight of them who make the decisions, and they only talk to each other."

Finally, and no less significantly, George W. Bush is captive to a poisonous Freudian complex, a kind of envy of the abilities of others, and a hatred, if not for his father, for his father's awareness that George is a bit of a disappointment. George W. may not hate his father, but he likely hates the opportunity he gave his father, through his sophomoric and boorish behavior, to feel some disappointment in his son. I mean, one cannot wander aimlessly through early life- living off his father's name and money- then abruptly shift gears to become a responsible adult pursuing a respectable career- and find that one is still living off his father's name and money- and not suffer some psychological consequences for it. I mean, you reap what you sow. George, to my mind, is reaping guilt sown as a young man, and is now sticking the world with the consequences of a Freudian struggle with his father. From the decision to run for President, unprepared as he was, to the decision to conquer Iraq, I see a Freudian impulse to prove himself to his father; to prove that he is not the wayward son but the unrecognized talent.

Granted, this is pure speculation on my part. But one has to guess at psychology if one is ever to understand people, because psychology is never overtly stated. I'd add that before one dismisses psychological explanations, consider the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. It cannot be explained without psycho-analyzing the Pope and his Church lieutenants. Lacking psychology, the explanation devolves into one of bureaucratic incompetence, which is simply not believable. So this is my guess regarding an inner motive of our President.

I still hold out hope that Kerry can win, because I believe that Bush is in some trouble. Not for the reasons stated above, but trouble nonetheless. Also, I don't believe the pollsters know what they're doing. But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

We can blame the Republicans all we want, or political miscalculations of Mr. Kerry, but in the end the blame lies with the ignorant and stupid masses. The blame lies squarely with their will to remain content with ignorance and mediocrity. I see it in politics, I see it here at work.

Once I felt a need to fend off misanthropy. Then I came to my senses. Misanthropy is what allows me to get pleasure and inspiration from Dostoevsky, Mark Twain, Anthony Powell (highly disguised in astringent English prose), Edvard Munch, The Office, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Metallica. Though unwelcome by most of humanity, it is necessary for its advancement. To quote James Hetfield, "Energy derives from both the plus and negative."

Pretty damn relevant today!

Fri Jul 17, 2009 (Music, Politics) Comments

[I'm digging through some old e-mails I saved. I wrote this message to my father back in November 2007 after reading N.Y. Times columist David Brooks' assessment of the music industry.]

It’s been a while since I’ve written one of my missives. But it's a slow afternoon here and N.Y. Times columnist David Brooks is such a pinhead.

David Brooks plays cultural critic again, explaining how the troubles of the music industry are due to a cultural “pivot moment” that occurred in the early 80s, segmenting our society and spelling doom for popular music. While I agree with him that music is in a sorry state today, I can’t stomach his diagnosis. Also, he fails to acknowledge that it wasn’t too long ago that a lot of really good rock music was created- Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, hell even the Black Crowes. All from the early 90s.

“It’s considered inappropriate or even immoral for white musicians to appropriate African-American styles.”

The entire rock genre is an appropriation of black music by white musicians. Hello? Elvis, The British Invasion, Keith Richards playing Chuck Berry riffs. Entirely appropriate and beneficial to both parties. I know of Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson because of Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton. I fail to see how some cultural schism has made this suddenly inappropriate. When he says “African-American styles” I think he means gangsta rap. Has he considered that one reason why so little of this music has been appropriated by musicians from other backgrounds is because there is so little value in it? This has nothing to do with “the temper of the times.” It has everything to do with the complete lack of melody and composition. The complete lack of musical content in diatribes pawned off as music.

“People who have built up cultural capital and pride themselves on their superior discernment are naturally going to cultivate ever more obscure musical tastes. I’m not sure they enjoy music more than the throngs who sat around listening to Led Zeppelin, but they can certainly feel more individualistic and special.”

Uh, and these people didn’t exist in the Sixties? Give me a break. Explain how Ravi Shankar became a music icon in the Sixties if not for people who crave to feel “individualistic and special.” Or even Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, or Bob Dylan. Besides, what’s wrong with feeling special? How does this negatively impact the music? Jimmy Buffet makes great music. Bob Dylan made great music. Jimmy isn’t trying to change your politics or make you feel superior. He’s just singing about good times and loves past and present. Bob Dylan was tying to change your politics and he was implicitly saying some of us are superior to others. So in David Brooks’ book that makes Jimmy Buffet a force for musical integration and Bob Dylan a force for musical segmentation. This Freudian psycho-analysis is worthless. Bob Dylan is the greater musician. He has forged more diverse musical traditions into a unique sound than has Jimmy Buffet, who has one sound. The cultural refinement of the two musicians is entirely irrelevant to the quality of their music. They aim for different targets and they both hit their marks.

“He [Steven Van Zandt] argues that if the Rolling Stones came along now, they wouldn’t be able to get mass airtime because there is no broadcast vehicle for all-purpose rock.”

Well, that’s because he’s an idiot. Is that analysis or jealousy? Sounds like he’s saying they’re successful because they came around at the right time. Yeah, playing black music to a tight-ass white crowd back in the mid Sixties was a calculated strategy to get air time. They’re successful because they’re talented. You don’t convince a million people to brave the crowds to see your band perform on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro- knowing full well they can buy the concert DVD later- unless you have some talent. OK, maybe the Brazilians are a bad example. You don’t convince 60-somethings to brave 35 degree temps on the windy shores of Lake Michigan to hear the Stones play unless the band has talent.

David Brooks’ analysis is so typical of social conservatives. I have noticed this at work in the attitude of a colleague who I would classify as a social conservative. They have this tendency to explain how all societal ills are rooted in personal moral failings. Music sucks today because people are so narcissistic. Not because the industry promotes bands beyond their talent for perceived financial gain- in other words, businessmen have made some very poor decisions. The economy is a wreck because people can’t check their impulse to buy unneeded material goods and spend way beyond their means. Not because large corporations and their political cronies have tilted the system in favor of immediate cash outs for the well heeled. Again- businessmen have made some very poor decisions. No, it’s all due to personal moral failings and our fragmented, narcissistic, decadent culture.

“Van Zandt has a way to counter all this, at least where music is concerned. He’s drawn up a high school music curriculum that tells American history through music.”

He’s going to resuscitate the music industry by confiscating it from youth and placing it in the hands of authority? Yes, says David Brooks, “he is trying to establish a canon.” I can see it now: Today’s lesson, Folsom Prison Blues by Johnny Cash. “In what waaaaaaayyyyy, does the singer’s use of the prison symbollllllllize…”

I’ve got a simpler solution for the ills of the music industry: Labels shouldn’t promote crappy music. And fans shouldn’t pirate good music. Probably the best course of action is to let the industry die. Let the large scale corporate interests move on to more profitable ventures. (I am reminded here of the Rolling Stone obituary of Ahmet Ertegun). Let the talentless hacks move on to self-produced Internet albums. Make room for real musicians who can make a name for themselves by virtue of their performance on stage. It can happen- it has happened. Metallica got practically zero radio play before their fifth album. And yet they were already a financial success by then. Lars made a point of saying this when the band finally won a Grammy for their black album. He was telling the industry to wake up and pay attention to the interests of fans that fall outside of the marketing charts.

BTW, Mr. Brooks, I wouldn’t take advice from a musician responsible for Tenth Avenue Freeze-Out. That song sucks! Every time I hear it at work I’m tempted to hack into the Muzak server and replace the playlist with my own.

Thu Jul 16, 2009 (Politics) Comments

This video has been sitting on my computer for- I don't know, a year and a half. I saved it because Jon Stewart's commentary assured me that, despite all the signs the world has decided to toss intellectuals aside and embrace the simpleton, there still are people who are not willing to lower their standards and play along. I love Jon Stewart's attitude. He doesn't care if he comes across as a smartass or even as a snob. When someone acts like a moron- is a moron- he's going to call them a moron. Compare that to the attitude of, say, Bob Woodward, who was quite willing to cash in on the public's need to see more in George W. Bush than there actually is. How many times did we hear the "He's really quite impressive in private" line? Jon Stewart ain't buying that.

I don't think the word Schadenfreude is quite right. We're not exactly getting pleasure witnessing the misfortune of others. George W. Bush decided to run for the Presidency, a job whose responsibilities include managing crises. So there is no misfortune when a crisis inevitably occurs. Maybe it's my appreciation for black comedy that explains why I enjoy Jon Stewart's comments. Maybe it's snobbery plain and simple. If it is snobbery I don't give a damn. I am a snob and proud of it. To quote Gypsy Jones' conversation with the narrator, Jenkins, from Anthony's Powell's A Dance To The Music Of Time:

Jon Stewart: "It was a classic President Bush move. Reassuring people by informing them he was there to reassure them. This is what this man does. He takes the subtext of a speech and he makes it... the text!"